I still haven't seen it but I want to. I have a "friend" that saw it on opening day and he says the movie was "gay". He is to fucking stupid to realize what's going on in any movie. Also, he condemned the movie for having a penis in it. It's not gay to show male nudity in a movie... unless if their interacting with it. Well, you can't expect much from an obese 14 year old Hispanic who thinks he's "gansta" and sits in his room all day playing Runescape.

the antithesis:While I also enjoyed the movie and agree with Bob on most points, it has come to my attention exactly why this movie will not be recognized for the masterpiece it is as an adaptation, a super hero movie, and a film in its own right: Dr Manhattan's penis.

Ok the book was giant blue wang-tastic, so I went to the movie looking for the colossal god stick.

Giant? Collosal? Jon was actually, judging from my limitted experience, rather unimpressive, even substandard - I think you revealed something about yourself.

If you're not impressed by a free swinging 20 foot schlong advancing over the jungles of Vietnam, well then Sir, I salute you.

jboking:I think MovieBob was far to gracious. I liked the watchmen, but even an uneducated film ditz like myself could find numerous problems with it. I would have liked to hear about some of the random ass scenes of over the top violence. I didn't much care for Ozzys performance either.

Care to explain? Yeah Ozzy's a real dipwad, but I would like to know where these "random ass scenes" were, and how they spoiled the movie.

To include the full quote up there,"Random ass scenes of over the top violence" - Remember when Night Owl and Silk Specter were getting mugged. Night owl punched a mans bone out of his arm. That didn't happen in the comic, it's overly violent, and makes it seem as though these individuals have some sort of super strength. Suffice it to say it ruins the illusion that these people are vulnerable and have been inactive for years. The extension to the sex scene was unnecessary as well.

Otakuman:What I'm truly grateful to the movie for is that Watchmen is now part of mainstream culture. No matter how big a superhero or comic book is the public doesn't really know about it until a popular movie is made, not just because of the people who have seen it but because of the millions more who are exposed to the marketing. Some people might morn the loss of the underground nature of the book, but I'm loving being able to talk to other people about these characters. And of course this will bring more people to the book, which no one can say is a bad thing. I mean, my dad just started reading the graphic novel because he saw a review of the film and found the book in my old room. He hasn't read a comic since silver age superman, but now he burning through Watchmen. I never thought I be able to discuss this with him without having to explain everything to him.

Probably the most important piece of comic book culture has been brought to the screen and done so masterfully. It shows that our fiction can be just as deep, moving and meaningful as any other work, and more so than most character dramas fishing for Oscar nominations. I plan to see this film three to seven times, and my forth showing's tonight. Go out, drag your friends along and show them what all the fuss is about.

agreed 120%.

Plus, as Far as Adaptations go (Sorry Bob, it's almost impossible NOT to talk about how an adaptation film works, especially when the original subject matter is this important to the original viewers), Watchmen is a pretty spot-on adaptation. There's very little I would have changed if I had to squeeze it into a movie - the squid and the pirate comic would be the first to go. Yes, they were great ideas on paper, but movie goers expect something different.

Go watch Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and you'll see what I mean.

For an adaptation movie to be truly stellar, it has to pay decent homage to its source material, and this one nails it.

I found Watchmen to be only slightly less pretentious than all of the fans who've swallowed its phony promises of being something deep and profound. And I suspect the reviewer of being just this sort of person.

I couldn't agree more with MovieBob on this one, I was absolutely enlightened by the sheer brilliance of this film; I walked out of the cinema with an air of disbelief about me. Also, it has become my new "base line" of assessing people. The people who don't like this film are the ones that didn't understand what the hell happened in it. Very good film!

Read the book, you'll be better off. If something cannot be fully adapted and correctly conveyed to the screen, they shouldn't even bother. Now a bunch of kids are going to be influenced by half-rate "epic" movies, and our culture takes another step down into the abyss..

Also - the comic is "unfilmable" in the same way that the Sistine Chapel Ceiling is "unfilmable"; you could *totally* use all the ceiling panels as a storyboard and make a so-called "faithful" adaptation, but it would be fucking retarded. The reason is because you have to be able to see a bunch of panels all at the same time to appreciate how they interrelate. Same thing with a page on a comic book. The panels relate to each other spatially as well as chronologically. Comics are not linear, even though the stories in them are. Not all comic books take full advantage of this spatial relationship, but Watchmen does. It relies on it heavily for much of its impact. This is why the book is called "unfilmable".

So anyway, Watchmen the movie is a faithful adaptation of Watchmen the book, and the result is idiotic. But hey - it's fun!

the antithesis:While I also enjoyed the movie and agree with Bob on most points, it has come to my attention exactly why this movie will not be recognized for the masterpiece it is as an adaptation, a super hero movie, and a film in its own right: Dr Manhattan's penis.

Ok the book was giant blue wang-tastic, so I went to the movie looking for the colossal god stick.

Giant? Collosal? Jon was actually, judging from my limitted experience, rather unimpressive, even substandard - I think you revealed something about yourself.

If you're not impressed by a free swinging 20 foot schlong advancing over the jungles of Vietnam, well then Sir, I salute you.

Watchman has some trully glaring flaws, and i was expecting the experiance to be realy shalow, however when i actualy sat back and saw it, i found that my previous noledge of the novel snuck in and southed some of the more opressive inacuracys, i'd recomend reading the book first, i feal it is ine of these rare exeptions where knoledge of the source, does not empead the film,

the first half is considerably better then the second, Veidt is better in the movie then in the book! in the comic he shites on a bit too mush.and his clothes are over the top.

the worst aspect of the movie is definetly, definetly, definetly! the music!, bob dylan is all very well but an albums worth of his stuff, well at a pinch i suppose it could have worked, but the there is the choice of edeting the music, and shit hits the fan, there are some realy cringing sources of pain in the audio of the movie it's hilarious.

Listen, the CGI was great. The special effects were amazing. Really. For your average movie goer, this is an enjoyable film, because it's so visually appealing. Forget the fact you just paid 16 bucks to sit in an overcrowded theather which is 80% people who didn't even know it was a graphic novel, and 3/4 of the remaining that maybe heard that it was but certainly hadn't read it, the bottom line is that it was special effects masterpiece.

That being said, the story was NOT as deep and rich as Shawshank, or as drawing in and funny as Lebowski. You didn't get any real great writing from this movie, like you did with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

This was a terrible story from every point of view. All the time that they spent developing characters was time wasted the minute you realized there was one, and only one, relevant character in the entire movie: Dr. Manhattan. The minute you realize that he is literally a god walking among mortals, all of the plot conflicts are immediately resolved. At four distinct points in the movie, the story is on the brink of an abrupt ending, and the "God figure" steps in and puts this decayed, dying, Terri Schiavo-esque movie on life support for another thirty minutes.

And let's talk about why these "Watchmen" were superheroes at all. None of them, save the Blue Shiny God, were anything more than really in shape, tough, martial artists. By this same measure, Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, and Michael Phelps make as much sense as the rest of these jagoffs, and seeing fight scenes featuring these four would be far more interesting than seeing mediocre actors, if that, in fight scenes with superfluous amounts of slow motion that were so heavily and poorly choreographed they felt unnatural, sluggish, and overly forced.

The "plot twists" were completely irrelevant. Finding on the new Silk Spectre's father was the Comedian means nothing. Mothman finally getting laid by this chick completely out of his league means nothing. Rorschach's throaty dialogues about morality mean nothing. All because Dr. Manhattan, at any point in the movie, solves every problem humanity has in the blink of an eye, creating a utopian society. He does this before the plot line of this movie even starts if he has any sort of human connection, and if he has waning or non-existant human connection, he just leaves humans to their own devices instead of meddling in their affairs.

The plot of this movie was a walking abortion from beginning to end, and if you enjoyed anything but the spectacular use of special effects, you need to have your brain checked for serious hemorrhaging.

"Movie that CAN'T be made" and "movie that SHOULDN'T" be made are two very different things.

P.S. There was more male nudity in this turd smear of film than an issue of Playgirl. Please, please, please, grow brains and realize how terrible this movie was. "Modern classic" my ass.

I thought it was just O.K. not a cinematic masterpiece, and not a gutter-ball like every movie Dane Cook has been in (the one exception to that being Mr. Brooks which was also just alright), but the point of this post is that it's just in the spot where I felt I didn't waste $10 on a movie.

Edit: And to the person who posted above me, mazel tov on making a giant rant for your first post.

Am I the only one who thought Rorschach's voice was awful? Rorschach is supposed to talk in a creepy monotone, he's not supposed to be doing an impression of Christian Bale's overcompensatory Batman voice.

I'm endlessly amused how the term "fanboy" has come to mean "anyone with a positive opinion I disagree with" in cyber-speak. Ah, well... Point-by-point, then:

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

"This was a terrible story from every point of view. All the time that they spent developing characters was time wasted the minute you realized there was one, and only one, relevant character in the entire movie: Dr. Manhattan."

Except that he's NOT ultra-relevant. He gets played for a sucker worse than anyone, and ultimately CAN'T do anything to undo the bad guy's plan OR stop him from getting away with it.

"And let's talk about why these "Watchmen" were superheroes at all. None of them, save the Blue Shiny God, were anything more than really in shape, tough, martial artists."

They pretty much deal with that IN the movie: It's stated that Manhattan is called "the first real Superhero" by Hollis Mason (the retired Nite Owl I.) The "Watchmen" call themselves "costumed heroes," save for Laurie who says "superheroes" ONCE in what's not her most emotionally-stable moment. Also note the Batman posters on the wall during the opening credits, informing us that comic-book 'superheroes' exist as fiction in this world - or at least did at one time - which is probably where they (the characters) got the reference from.

"The "plot twists" were completely irrelevant. Finding on the new Silk Spectre's father was the Comedian means nothing. Mothman finally getting laid by this chick completely out of his league means nothing. Rorschach's throaty dialogues about morality mean nothing."

In writing, these aren't "plot twists," they're character backgrounds that help explain WHY these damaged, psychologically-unstable people act how they act. The revelation of Laurie's parentage adds the final piece to the puzzel of understanding just HOW screwed-up her background and family-influences are, WHY her mother is how she is, and finally gives a final tweak to the already bizzare Comedian. Nite Owl ("Mothman" is only in the flashbacks) only being able to achieve sexual release in his costumed persona is our best explanation as to WHY this goofy dork of a guy (whos independently wealthy) "needs" to be a costumed hero. You're correct that Rorschach's monologues are meaningless, thats the key to his character: For half the film, the mask makes him seem like this grizzled hard-case who's seen it all and is jaded, then it comes off and we see that he's BARELY 30, a developmentally-arrested angry little boy acting like Clint Eastwood and taking out his mommy issues on the underworld. It's a "gotcha," in other words.

It's more of a "cautionary tale" vis-a-vi a genre satire than it is a morality play. It's designed to ask the eternal comic book question "what if superheroes existed in the real world?" and answer it with: "they'd be psychotic, fetishistic, mentally-unstable nutters who would only dissapoint you."

I'm endlessly amused how the term "fanboy" has come to mean "anyone with a positive opinion I disagree with" in cyber-speak.

You couldn't have given this movie more verbal felatio if you were Jenna Jameson and it was Peter North. In your review you raised this movie up to the highest level of veneration, putting it in the same league as Shawshank Redemption (guffaw). If that's not fanboy level worship, I don't know what is. "I've seen this movie 4 times..." - MovieBobPathetic.

Except that he's NOT ultra-relevant. He gets played for a sucker worse than anyone, and ultimately CAN'T do anything to undo the bad guy's plan OR stop him from getting away with it.

Getting played for a sucker and being an omnipotent, endlessly powerful, and physically present diety are not mutually exclusive. Not to mention, that just because he DOESN'T do anything about it doesn't mean he CAN'T (he just doesn't or else the movie would have no production value). In the movie, he says he can control all matter. Which means he controls all energy. If you know anything about theoretical physics, you know this means he also controls time. So yes, at every moment in the entire movie, he can choose to end the entire movie, go back in time and right the wrongs of the past, prevent all wars and human suffering, and create a utopia. Failing that, the other choice a diety has is to leave humans (and all other lifeforms on the planet) to their own consequences based on their own decisions due to free will. Either way, you're either the end of the movie (because there's no entertainment value in watching a utopia), or the movie ends after the first hour because he fails to step in and the movie comes to an abrupt, violent, crashing end.

Because of this, none of the other plot lines matter. You don't care about the backstories of the other characters because those characters aren't relevant due to this "deus ex machina" element. The last time a story was even remotely this widely popular with this "god among men" component was that fine piece of fiction we refer to as "The New Testament". That was also a "cautionary tale", and we've all seen the types of intolerance and suffering that come from following that logic blindly for the past two thousand years or so. The only difference is the suffering caused by this movie is on a smaller scale, and only applies to people with brains enough to realize it's terrible. The fact that we (the people that understand how poor this movie is) paid money to see this hunk of garbage is just the salt in the intellectual wound.

(edit: I've been seeing a lot of bitching about the soundtrack. It's the only saving grace of the movie that is not special effects, so be grateful your ears were graced by "All Along the Watchtowers" in HD surround sound.)

There, I saw it. It wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't a masterpiece, either. To me, a person who never read the comics, it was just another comic adaption which is enjoyable to watch once but nothing of any big impact on my life. I wouldn't particularily recommend this movie to my buddies. The only memorable thing is Rorschach's ending. Quite fitting.

Except that he's NOT ultra-relevant. He gets played for a sucker worse than anyone, and ultimately CAN'T do anything to undo the bad guy's plan OR stop him from getting away with it.

Getting played for a sucker and being an omnipotent, endlessly powerful, and physically present diety are not mutually exclusive. Not to mention, that just because he DOESN'T do anything about it doesn't mean he CAN'T (he just doesn't or else the movie would have no production value). In the movie, he says he can control all matter. Which means he controls all energy.

And the key point here...even if for some reason he cannot reverse time in the strict sense (IE turn back the clock and be in yesterday) he can functionally turn back time. Just go and...remake all the stuff that got blown up. It's no less impressive to the world, and the world leaders ('Hey, chumps...next time it fucking STAYS blown up, hokay?') and has the advantage of not being, you know, party to mass murder. Plus I still don't understand why, even if he isn't going to/can't fix that, he doesn't disintergrate ozy. Dude is actually factually evil, even if he thinks he is doing good/doing the right thing; Plenty of political leaders this century have been totally convinced they were doing 'the right thing' all the way through their 20 million body counts.

And, honestly, I still don't understand how anyone can in-all-seriousness describe ozy as a good actor. He's better than bad, sure, but despite what ren and stimpy tell you 'better than bad' is not the same as good.

" If you know anything about theoretical physics, you know this means he also controls time."So I guess you weren't paying attention to the film at all were you? That's not Manhattan's power. While yes he can see his own past, present, and future that does not mean he can change it. He just goes through the motions just like everyone else, except that he unlike others, he's a puppet who can see the strings. And even if he could change time, it's not like he would. Since apparently you weren't paying attention at all, you completely missed the significance of the scene during Vietnam where The Comedian shoots the pregnant lady at the bar. You're right, Dr. Manhattan could solve everything, the thing is(and the whole point of that scene) is to show that Dr. Manhattan does not care about humanity and sees a living person as no different than a dead one.

Ska Oreo:You're right, Dr. Manhattan could solve everything, the thing is(and the whole point of that scene) is to show that Dr. Manhattan does not care about humanity and sees a living person as no different than a dead one.

Exactly, he doesn't care about humanity. At all. So why, in his omnipotence, does he linger around a bunch of beings he doesn't care about? If he has this "wavering human attachment" people keep talking about, then he saves humanity. If he doesn't care about humanity, then he leaves them to their own devices. But he's constantly meddling in the affairs of humans (building them machines, killing them as a super weapon in the Vietnam War, fucking his ex-girlfriend's super hot daughter), proving that he actually DOES care. He was a terribly flawed character beginning to end. He didn't take a hard line on anything. He wasn't an interesting character because the only consistant things about him were his melancholy attitude, pretentious blathering, and floppy blue wang.

You have no idea about this character because given similar situations, he acts in completely different ways. If he doesn't care about humans, why fight in the Vietnam War for America? If you're losing your connection with humanity as a whole, I'm pretty sure patriotism, national pride, and duty to your country are pretty fucking far away from your "core values". And it obviously wasn't under threat of death or any sort of punishment, so why do it? The whole pregnant woman being killed scene is a direct juxtaposition of character values to the 100ft. tall blue killing machine scene.

And controlling matter certainly IS his power. Were you not watching this movie? Remember the whole gyroscopic clock on Mars thing? Or when he reassembles himself after being disintegrated near the end of the movie? Or any other part where he's blatantly controlling all forms of matter?

"You couldn't have given this movie more verbal felatio if you were Jenna Jameson and it was Peter North. In your review you raised this movie up to the highest level of veneration, putting it in the same league as Shawshank Redemption (guffaw). If that's not fanboy level worship, I don't know what is. "I've seen this movie 4 times..." - MovieBob"

It's not in the "same league" as Shawshank or a few of the other films mentioned, what they have in common isn't quality but the fact that they performed so-so in theatres and met with largely mixed reviews, only to re-emerge as nigh-unquestioned cinephile classics on VHS/DVD. I'll confess to some puzzlement as to the what the frequency of watching it has to do with anything - I see many things multiple times for many reasons. Heck, I saw "The Spirit" TWICE because that thing was god-awful... I had to see it again with someone else just to make sure it was REALLY as bad as I initially thought.

"Getting played for a sucker and being an omnipotent, endlessly powerful, and physically present diety are not mutually exclusive. Not to mention, that just because he DOESN'T do anything about it doesn't mean he CAN'T"

Right. Which is why all the other characters (and the audience) are justifiably fed up with him. His omnipotence renders him ineffectual, because he lives all at once in the past, present and future doing things that he already knows he's going to do... has in fact already done. He already knows where everything (that he'll ever experience, at least) is going, so it's largely impossible for him to care. Hence, he fights in Vietnam because he knows he's going to do it and (at another point "in what we percieve as time") he's already done it. He STARTS to almost care again, because part of Ozzie's master plan has blocked a certain portion of the future from him thus allowing him to re-engage the universe on an uncertain, more "human" level... JUST long enough for him to not be able to stop anything.

come on, a "fucking masterpiece"? Watchmen is far from that point, and all this reviewer seems to do is praise every aspect of it, being amazed at random things like Rorschach's voice. We get it, his voice his cool, now stop acting like its the greatest thing to hit cinema.

I loved the film, and can't wait for the extended cut to see what it was supposed to be like.

There where a few faults with the film. The sex scene was a little much, and 99 Red Balloons was a strange musical choice for a scene at a restaurant (But I LOVED the music in the opening titles).

There are a few people who do go on about Dr Manhattan's knob, and when I saw the film again (who says no to Solid Snake?) I saw that there where quite a few times where they seem to purposefully hide it. The shots it does appear in are ones where you couldn't really film from the waist up. If it was hidden after a while it would just get silly as objects would mysteriously be in just the right place to cover it up (see The Simpsons movie). Come on people it's not like he's thrusting it at the camera for two hours.

As for the actors can I just say that Jeffrey Dean Morgan made The Comedian into one of my favourite characters in the movie, he's just so awesome. It's like Moviebob says he may be a child murderer and rapist, but he's got this Captain Kirk style of awesomeness.

with all due respect, no it's not going to be the classic in a year that everyone has to have in their collections. It's flawed, and all your fanboy passion will not make one dent in the fact a lot of people were disappointed by this movie. I saw it twice and liked it better the second time, but the damn thing is flawed with too much gore, and a couple of boring, un-involving characters in Night Owl and Silk Spectre. Rorschach's bit "you think I'm locked in here with you, but you're locked in here with me!" was pretty good. and the Dr. Manhattan sequence was good, perfectly compelling with great Phillip Glass music. This reviewer dissed on the "ADD" fights in the Bourne movies, but those fights had drama especially in the last film. Watchmen's fights while cool to watch, never had any of the tension, or power of even Snyder's hit 300. I can understand every person who would say they thought the movie was weird or "okay"

Watchmen while showing its budget and ambition's is certainly a mixed bag, Snyder doesn't seem to have much talent directing female actors, and the topper in this film was the crap ending in the news office of characters we had never even met up to that time finding Rorschach's journal.

mommy told me that penises are a fake illusion of trick. mommy said their satans way of pulling me into hell. so i think watchmen sucks because it tried making me into a hellguy person with dr manhatans penis. also mommy says that gay people use their penis to make us into hell people. mommy says that they do that becuz their made of satan. gay people are bad cuz there satan.

Really though, anybody who is honestly so affected by that one little thing is objectively narrow-minded. Here, I'll even prove it with the dictionary.com definition of narrow-minded:-adjective1. having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased.2. not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind.3. extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.

Putting a penis on a big screen is a new idea. Being morally opposed to it is narrow-minded.

I thought the movie was wonderful. It certainly won't be the cultural milestone like the graphic novel is said to be, but it was still good movie that achieved what a movie is meant to achieve. And that's to be easily riffable.. err I mean to entertain.

I just find it fascinating and hilarious that they made Dr. Manhattan's wang proportionally larger in the movie than it is in the comic book. In the book it's got the "just went for a swim" look whereas the movie version definitely has some hang to it. Bearing in mind that Manhattan's body is entirely CGI, this can only mean one of two things: either the CG artist working on his character model decided to upgrade it of his own initiative, or at some point in the production, Zack Snyder told him to make the dick bigger. Who knows? Perhaps there was a meeting about this issue. There were probably memos circulating on the matter, maybe even some focus-group testing to determine exactly the right amount of wang that would be needed to make the movie appeal to as broad an audience as possible. What to do? Too big, and you alienate your core audience, too small and the mainstream will ridicule it. I think most of the changes from comic to movie were done with pretty much the same mentality, actually.

This just in: "Watchmen" the movie has a bigger dick than "Watchmen" the comic - literally *and* figuratively.

Yeah it was good. I guess you could consider it a classic, but for people that haven't read the comic (like me) it just never drew me in the way The Dark Night did. Sure it was great, to much nudity though.